A Living Church Article on Yesterday’s Debate in the House of Bishops on Gender Identity

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, opposed the change in canon language.

“We have entered into a time of individualized eros, with a wide variety of self-perceptions,” Bishop Lawrence said. “We are condemning ourselves to freedom — the freedom of every individual to self-define every aspect of who they are in such a way that we no longer have any kinds of norms. We are entering into the chaos of individuality. It’s an idol that will break us....”

The Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh, Bishop of Rochester, supported the resolutions, saying he knows what it feels like to be “the other.”

“When I am in India, people think I’m an American. Here, people think I’m from somewhere else,” he said. The resolutions encourage healthy self-examination, he said.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)General Convention --Gen. Con. 2012TEC Bishops* TheologyAnthropology

2 Comments
Posted July 8, 2012 at 4:05 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Milton Finch wrote:

Thanks be to God for Bishop Lawrence!

July 8, 8:13 pm | [comment link]
2. Calvin wrote:

I appreciate Bishop Lawrence’s voice - and I heard these comments on the live feed.  However, I’m not sure he was as clear as he could have been.  Is “individualized eros” clear to everyone?  Did the members of the HOB know what he meant by this?  And when we really think about it, what does it mean to condemn ourselves to freedom (though I am reminded of Galatians 5:13 here).

What the Transgender Resolution supporters argued was that Person A was born this way (whatever “this way” might be).  The theological perspective for them is that this condition MUST BE part of God’s creation.  Their video (posted on this very blog) was clear and straightforward.  For those moved by emotion, it may have even been persuasive.

The orthodox counter should be equally simple and straightforward.  Experiencing something in ourselves as natural does not automatically mean that it is part of God’s good creation.  Like many things in life, it could very well be an element yearning for transformation, groaning for resurrection (Rom 8).  The Fall has wounded God’s creation and the Gospel itself is grounded on the notion of Christ bringing healing and new life, binding up the old wounds. 

We can’t forget that the LGBTQ supporters ground almost all their arguments on the simple assumption that if it is in nature, it must be part of God’s good creation. (e.g. God made me this way; God don’t make trash)  In the end, then, there is no healing because there is nothing to heal, and thus we have a parody of the Gospel.  I think we need to constantly draw attention to this, over and over and over again. 

We can’t forget that behind most of the heresies facing TEC is a fundamentally Pelagian view of creation.  Without the Fall, any imaginable sickness can be construed as part of God’s good creation and something to be affirmed and celebrated.

July 9, 12:25 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): (UCC Minister) Emily Heath—The Mainline Church and Dusty Feet, a Sermon

Previous entry (below): (Western NC) Bishop Porter Taylor offers some Thoughts on General Con. 2012

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)